Based in a sample of middle class participants from Lima city (n = 81), intergroup relations’ dynamic is analyzed. Considering the stereotypes and prejudices towards diverse ethnic groups, higher and lower status groups in the society are identified following their possibili- ties of power access. Results are analyzed in terms of social, cultural, cognitive and affective processes that mediate intergroup relations and result in social exclusion demonstrations. Finally, these results suggest that the institutionalization of exclusion practices is a culturalform of power perpetuation promoted by dominant groups. / A partir de una muestra de personas de clase media de la ciudad de Lima (n = 81), se analiza la dinámica de las relaciones intergrupales en el Perú. Basándonos en los estereotipos y prejuicios hacia diversos grupos étnicos encontramos la existencia de grupos de alto y bajo estatus, cuya situación es percibida en función a sus posibilidades de acceso al poder. Las implicancias de estos resultados se analizan en términos de los procesos sociales, culturales, cognitivos y afectivos que median las relaciones intergrupales y que derivan en la manifestación de la exclusión social. Finalmente, estos resultados nos llevan a considerar que la institucionalización de las prácticas de exclusión surge como una manera de preservar el poder de los grupos dominantes.

Can social cohesion and solidarity persist in the face of large-scale migration? One particularly contentious hypothesis states that native majorities will be unwilling to support the provision of government-funded welfare to those whom they do not consider to be part of their own sociocultural ingroup, especially when sociocultural or ethnic otherness and socioeconomic disadvantage overlap. Consequently, majorities’ willingness to accept disadvantaged immigrant groups as legitimate and trusted members of the welfare community is central to the social cohesion of societies diversifying through migration. The dissertation consists of a comprehensive summary, followed by four original studies addressing the interplay between migration-induced diversity and social cohesion through the lens of majority attitudes and the micro and macro contexts within which they are embedded. The studies focus on Sweden and Germany, two European societies that host strong welfare states and large immigrant populations. Together, they seek to answer two central questions: First, does social distance between native-born citizens and immigrants lead the former to withdraw support from all redistributive policies, or are some types of welfare more affected than others? Second, how does the migration-induced diversification of societies come to matter for majority attitudes toward the welfare state and, as they are closely related, for majority attitudes toward the trustworthiness of others? Looking at the case of Germany, Study 1 shows that the conflict between diversity and welfare solidarity is not expressed in a general majority opposition to welfare, but rather in an opposition to government assistance benefiting immigrants – a phenomenon sometimes referred to as welfare chauvinism. Study 2 turns to the case of Sweden and investigates three pathways into welfare chauvinism: via the first-hand experience of immigrant unemployment and putative welfare receipt in the neighborhood context; via exposure to immigrant competition at the workplace; and via negative prejudice against immigrants. We find that the direct observation of immigrant unemployment in the neighborhood increases natives’ preference for spending on other Swedes over spending on immigrants, while competition with immigrants at the workplace does not. Using the same Swedish data, Study 3 hypothesizes that ethnically diverse workplaces imply trust-fostering inter-group contact. Yet, like in Study 2, we find a negative relationship between majority Swedes’ exposure to certain immigrant groups in the neighborhood and their trust in neighbors, while diverse workplaces neither seem to increase trust nor to affect the negative neighborhood-level association. Both Studies 2 and 3 show that negative attitudes toward immigrants increase welfare chauvinism and lower trust, even disregarding majority Swedes’ actual experience of immigrant presence or unemployment. Study 4 thus turns to a social force outside the realm of first-hand experience and explores German online news media debates on the welfare deservingness of various sociodemographic groups – among them, immigrants (as refugees in particular). However, rather than observing the persistent and particular stigmatization of immigrants as undeserving recipients or untrustworthy abusers of welfare, we find much more nuanced descriptions in our vast corpus of news stories. / <p>At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 2: Manuscript. Paper 3: Manuscript. Paper 4: Manuscript.</p>

M.Ed. (Education) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

The study of contact and desegregation in post apartheid South Africa has not received adequate attention (Durrheim & Dixon, 2005b). Mondeor, a previously White populated suburb in the South of Johannesburg has been identified as being a racially diverse neighbourhood . By focusing on this suburb, the current study investigated whether or not residents interacted or mixed with members from other race groups and whether or not increased contact with members of different race groups in a residential neighbourhood would promote positive intergroup attitudes. Zones were identified for the purpose of this study whereby each Zone was predominantly comprised of a specific race group. Quantitative data was collected by means of distributing an intergroup attitude and contact questionnaire to the residents according to the zones in which they resided. A sample of N=197 respondents was obtained. The results indicated that there was generally no significant difference in contact for the Zones (racially exclusive zones and racially mixed zones), however, significant differences existed in levels of contact for the various race groups. In addition to this it was found that significant differences in contact existed for the various education levels of the respondents. As expected, a significant negative relationship (r = -0.16) was found to exist between contact and affective prejudice. In addition to these results, significant relationships were found to exist between affective prejudice and the following variables: Intergroup anxiety (r=0.37), and social distance (r=0.27). In conclusion, it was found that residents were not mixing as much as what was envisaged for a racially mixed neighbourhood. In addition to this, contact in and of itself was not found to be a predictive measure for affective prejudice. Thus, this finding lends support to Allport’s contact hypothesis making it clear that it is imperative to examine the nature of the contact as this may be pertinent in the promotion of the reduction of affective prejudice in intergroup contact situations.

The Westboro Baptist Church and Phelps family are notorious for their signs proclaiming anti-homosexuality epithets such as “God Hates Fag,” and references to Biblical verses to revile homosexuality (e.g., Romans 1:24-27). Although the homonegativity bias that Westboro patrons and many traditional Christians express is often understood as being rooted in religion, I proposed the possibility that religion can be a justification rather than source of homonegativity. That is, although religion typically is seen as the source of prejudice towards LGBT+ people, I argued that this relationship might work in reverse. I examined under which conditions this “reverse” phenomena might occur in both the Pilot Study and follow-up study. My Pilot Study results suggested that there are differences in participants’ level of Religiosity after falsely being told they held LGBT+ prejudices. These differences were moderated by political alignment. Relatively liberal participants were more likely to have higher levels of Religiosity after receiving Biased Feedback compared to those who received Neutral Feedback. In terms of those who were more politically conservative, their level of Religiosity tended to be about the same regardless of which feedback they received. When it came to Biblical Literalism, however, relatively conservative participants had higher levels of literalism when given the Neutral Feedback compared to relatively liberal participants when given the same Feedback. These findings were mostly replicated in the follow-up Main Study. The results from both studies suggest that, under some circumstances, people might use religion to justify their prejudice towards LGBT+, and the strategy they use is affected by their political alignment (liberal or conservative). There could be differences in motivations between people who are more politically conservative and those who are more politically liberal. These potential differences are addressed in the discussion.

Le processus de catégorisation sociale occupe une place centrale dans la psychologie des relations intergroupes comme fondement des stéréotypes, des préjugés et de la discrimination. Il est aussi au cœur des débats sur les modèles politiques d’intégration interrogeant différentes voies possibles du vivre ensemble. Pour construire une société harmonieuse et cohésive, doit-on être aveugle aux différences ethniques, culturelles ou religieuses comme le prône la tradition républicaine française et donc éviter la catégorisation, ou faut-il, au contraire, reconnaître et mettre en valeur les différences culturelles et religieuses à l’instar d’une politique de multiculturalisme ? L’objectif général de cette thèse est de combler le manque de recherche sur une telle problématique en France en examinant de manière systématique l’influence du modèle républicain et du multiculturalisme sur les relations intergroupes, croisant le point de vue du groupe majoritaire et des populations minoritaires.Une première série d’études (N=338) visait à développer un instrument mesurant l’adhésion aux principes du modèle républicain. Elles révèlent deux facteurs distincts caractérisant cette adhésion : la citoyenneté, associée au à des attitudes favorables à l’égard du multiculturalisme et des minorités, et la laïcité, porteuse de préjugés et de conservatisme. L’étude 3 menée auprès de minoritaires (N=42) atteste du traitement égalitaire qui caractérise la citoyenneté, promotrice d’intégration et non d’assimilation.Dans une deuxième partie, l’étude 4 s’intéressait à analyser l’incidence causale des modèles d’intégration par leur induction expérimentale auprès de minoritaires Maghrébins (N=126). Les résultats montrent que ces modèles génèrent des effets positifs sur le bien-être, l’identification aux groupes et des orientations égalitaires. Elle souligne aussi le rôle du contact occasionné par la présence d’un expérimentateur du groupe majoritaire ou minoritaire.Usant du même protocole expérimental, une troisième et dernière partie empirique étudiait les attitudes du groupe majoritaire après induction des modèles d’intégration et des situations de contact. L’étude 5 (N=82) atteste que le multiculturalisme véhicule moins d’intolérance comparée au modèle républicain français au contact d’un expérimentateur majoritaire, mais conduit à une augmentation de l’hostilité intergroupe après rencontre d’un expérimentateur immigré. L’étude 6 (N=93) réduisant le statut hiérarchique avec un compère Maghrébin confirme la responsabilité du multiculturalisme dans l’expression d’un biais défavorable aux minorités. L’ensemble de ces résultats appuie l’idée d’effets bénéfiques partagés par les deux modèles mais distingue aussi des conditions limites à leur application. / The process of social categorization is central to the psychology of intergroup relations as the cognitive basis of stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. It is also very much involved in current political debates about integration models and ways of managing cultural and religious diversity. In order to develop an harmonious and cohesive society, should one be blind to cultural, ethnic or religious differences as advocated by the French republican tradition, and thus avoid ethnic or religious categorization, or to the contrary, should one recognize, accept and value cultural and religious differences as advocated in a multiculturalism policy? The general aim of this thesis is to examine in a systematic manner the impact of the Republican model, and of the multiculturalism model, on intergroup relations from the perspective of both majority and minority group members.In a first series of studies (N = 338), an instrument designed to measure attitudes toward the principles of the Republican model was developed. The results indicate two distinct dimensions underlying these attitudes: republican citizenship, a dimension related to positive attitudes toward multiculturalism and minority groups, and secularism, a dimension related to prejudice and conservatism. Study 3 confirms among minority group members (N = 42) that citizenship is an egalitarian dimension, positively related to integration as an acculturation strategy rather than assimilation.In a second part, Study 4 tested the experimental effects of the integration models among participants of North African origin (N = 126). The results revealed a positive effect of both models on well-being, group identification and egalitarianism. The group membership of the experimenter (minority vs. majority group member) was also shown to be important.Using the same experimental paradigm, a third and final part concerns the reactions of majority group members. Study 5 (N = 82) showed that multiculturalism is more effective than the Republican model to reduce prejudice but only when the experimenter is a majority group member. The reverse is observed when the experimenter is a member of a minority group. Study 6 (N=93) showed that this effect does not stem from the fact that the minority group member has the high status of the experimenter..Overall, the results suggest that both models can generate positive effects but that there are conditions that can prevent the materialization of these effects.

In recent years it has become widely accepted that the natural systems on which we depend for survival are being degraded by human activity. It is no longer a question of if we need to reduce our impact upon the planet, but of the extent to which we need to change our behaviour, and how soon we need to act. Such change will depend upon the support of voters, governments, and the international community and will require wide spread changes in attitudes and behaviour. Using the social identity approach as a framework, the current programme of research focuses on rural land users in Australia and the effectiveness of sustainable land use campaigns directed at them from both urban and rural sources. The studies provide a novel contribution to the area by demonstrating the effects of intergroup threat on group-based communication, in particular, the perception of threat to rural identity and the effect on urban and rural messages aimed at changing land use behaviour. Conclusions about broader social influence processes were also made by assessing rural participants’ perceptions of the degree to which others are influenced. Although the studies are based in the context of rural Australian land users, the results and theoretical implications can be applied to any situation wherein one group is attempting to change the attitudes and behaviours of another group. This could range from local interest groups trying to convince each other of the merits of their ideas through to political parties and nations calling for united and decisive action on global issues. Such groups ignore issues of power and status at the risk of ineffective communications or even a backlash in opinion and behaviour. Six studies were conducted, including five survey studies with rural landholders and one experiment with students at a rural campus. Study 1 (N = 251) was an evaluation of sustainable land use campaigns in general, comparing those from urban sources to those from rural sources. Study 2 (N = 585) extended this by assessing the moderating role of intergroup threat perceptions. This study also measured the perceptions of influence of urban and rural messages on urban people and other rural people. Study 3 (N = 98) assessed the influence of an actual land use campaign delivered by an ingroup source on individuals’ attitudes and behaviours and the perceived influence on others. Study 4 (N = 249) built upon Study 2 but included additional measures to address some of the inconsistencies between Studies 1 and 2. To address the psychological underpinnings of group-based influence, Study 5 (N = 124) included measures of trust in urban and rural sources as well as reports of influence, agreement, and past behaviour. To conclude, Study 6 (N = 64) provided an experimental test of persuasion by manipulating the source of the message. Self-reported identification and intergroup threat were examined as moderators of group-based persuasion. Furthermore, attributions of constructiveness were explored as a possible reason for the superior influence of ingroups. Across the six studies it was found that ingroup messages were consistently more influential than outgroup messages. Attributions of trust and constructiveness helped to explain the superior influence of ingroups. In terms of perceptions of influence on others, there was a third-person effect for urban messages but rural people did not differentiate between themselves and other rural people in response to rural messages. Furthermore, rural identification was associated with greater reported influence from the ingroup source and perceived threat was associated with increased influence of rural messages compared to urban messages. These findings have clear implications for attempts at changing attitudes between groups, particularly where there is a salient and competitive intergroup context. Outgroups operate at a distinct disadvantage in delivering persuasive communications, especially if ingroup identification is high or there is a perception of threat stemming from the communicating group. Evidence of the persuasiveness of ingroups compared to outgroups is further strengthened by the perceptions of similarity in influence of rural sources for self and other ingroup members. The findings on trust and constructiveness hint at the possibility of overcoming barriers to outgroup persuasion if positive motives for the messages can be established. Of course, this depends on the severity of the intergroup context and the nature of communication. Recommendations are made for a collaborative approach to achieving change.

Thesis (MSS(Sociology))-University of Pretoria, 2006. / Abstract in English and Afrikaans. Includes bibliographical references.

<p>Although subgroups are a central component of work teams, they have remained largely unexamined by organizational scholars. In three chapters, a theory and measure of subgroups are developed and then tested. The theory introduces a typology of subgroups and a depiction of the antecedents and consequences of subgroups. The measure, called the subgroup algorithm, determines the most dominant configurations of subgroups in real work teams--those that are most likely to influence team processes and outcomes. It contrasts the characteristics within a subgroup or set of subgroups versus the characteristics between subgroups or a set of subgroups for every potential configuration of subgroups on every work team in a given sample. The algorithm is tested with a simulation, with results suggesting that it adds value to the methodological literature on subgroups. The empirical test uses the subgroup algorithm to test key propositions put forth in the theory of subgroups. First, it is predicted that teams will perform better when identity-based subgroups are unequal in size and knowledge-based subgroups are equal in size. Second, it is predicted that, although teams will perform better with an increasing number of both identity-based and knowledge-based subgroups, there will be a discontinuity in this linear function for identity-based subgroups: teams with two identity-based subgroups will perform more poorly than teams with any other number of identity-based subgroups. The subgroup algorithm is used to test these predictions in a sample of 326 work teams. Results generally support the predictions.</p> / Dissertation

<p>The increasing ethnic diversity among Black people in the United States is growing at a near exponential rate due to the migration of Afro-Caribbean, Afro-Latino, and African immigrants to the United States. This study is an endeavor to understand how this increasing diversity in ethnicity among Blacks in the U.S. will influence the boundaries of Black identity and Black politics. I ultimately aim to gain a sense of the processes by which Black immigrants come to embrace or reject a racial identity, the mechanisms by which African-Americans become more accepting of "cross-cutting" political issues, and the extent to which an intraracial coalition and a broader, more inclusive racial consciousness--a diasporic consciousness--might develop among Black immigrants and African Americans. This study utilizes survey data, in-depth interviews with African Americans and Black immigrants, and controlled experiments to examine the questions presented here. This study finds that African Americans and Black immigrants are accepting of a Black identity that is inclusive of ethnic diversity, largely due to shared racialized experiences. Moreover, this study concludes that while group consciousness influences the behaviors and attitudes of Black immigrants and African Americans in very similar ways, there are important differences between the groups that will need to be considered in future Black politics studies. Finally, this study finds that there are obstacles to raising a more inclusive racial consciousness because African Americans and Black immigrants do not see eye-to-eye on what issues should be be prioritized on a unified Black political agenda.</p> / Dissertation